[JJ_SO]

Totally. More than 3 MP is overkill. For facebook.

[wim]

Hopefully does not introduce some fire. 

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d...s-review/6

 

 

Wim, BC wake up - take actions :-)

Why?

 

To each their own, in my book anyway.

 

I am quite happy with what I have. Currently just waiting for a 50+ MP mirrorless FF camera from Canon . And that's for big prints . And a DR of 10 to 12 stops is plenty enough for me .

 

BTW, I read an interesting article off late, although I can't remember where. High iso and high DR testing is useless unless some real world samples are show. Well-lighted test sheets or test subjects are really totally useless for this, as they do not reflect real life photography, and the result with real photography may well be completely different . When I find the article again (read it on Flipbook on my phone), I will post the url .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[JJ_SO]

Well, to a certain point I do agree: Real world pictures are a different story than shooting test boards.

 

However, I don't expect a sensor showing weaknesses on a testboard to be much better (in aspects of noise in shadows, shadows and highlights to be recoverable) in real life than a sensor with less weaknesses. Therefore the lemon in DR remains at Canon  It's no point to adapt one theory to real life na dthe other leaving in theory.

 

It's a bit the same story with equivalence-  it's just highly theoretical maths as there are effects of general sharpness, corner sharpness, contrast and bokeh behaviour of a lens coming into play when it comes to real world prints. And all of a sudden f/2 is not the same DoF as f/3 or f/8 not the same as f/12

[toni-a]

maybe off topic (or back to topic ?) seems D850 sensor is not made by Sony but by towerjazz ex panasonic

 

http://www.funtechtalk.com/makes-image-s...-not-sony/

 

if they have the technology why don't they make a similarly capable 22 MP MFT sensor ?

[wim]

maybe off topic (or back to topic ?) seems D850 sensor is not made by Sony but by towerjazz ex panasonic

 

http://www.funtechtalk.com/makes-image-s...-not-sony/

 

if they have the technology why don't they make a similarly capable 22 MP MFT sensor ?

 

They are working on totally new sensor technology, organic sensors. The idea is that wells of organic sensors have much larger well capacity, and hence better performance noise-wise, and higher iso possibilities .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

Update on the "mRAW" and "sRAW". Apparently, Nikon has changed what that entails, on the D850.
 
Now, they are actually 12 bits "RAW".
 
Iliah Borg looks into the files with Raw digger and found that D850 RAW has 8,288 x 5,520 pixels in the RAW file. M has 7,104 x 4,728 pixels, S has 6,216 x 4,136 pixels.

Nikon RAW files get converted into 8,256 x 5,504 pixel images. (this always happens, many border pixels go *poof*).
The M ones get converted into 6,192 x 4,128 pixel images, some serious downsampling still going on there during conversion.
The S ones get converted into 4,128 x 2,752 pixel images, even more serious downsampling going on.

I am sure they have a reason for the 2nd downsampling during conversion. However, to me it seems to partly defeat the reason to shoot mRAW and sRAW (file size).

[toni-a]

Just a quick question a friend of mine had Nikon D5200 however when gong through menus the hourglass was always appearing and the menus were too slow, he sold it and switched back to Canon, any of it on D850 ? those slow menus response weren't noted in any review 

[JJ_SO]

Because they are not normal.

 

You're doing it again, toni-a: blowing a fly to the size of an elephant. At first, it's ridiculous, at second it's annoying.

 

Nearly every reviewer hast set up the camera language to a Western language. I even don't know, if Arabic or whatever your friend chose, is on the list of supported languages (yes,it is along with 34 other languages for the D850), but this could be the reason for delay - or a firmware bug.

 

Are you seriously thinking, a pro camera with a delay in menus could be sold?

 

But of course, selling the camera and running to the other company is much easier than finding out if something is wrong. Glad he found a good one.

[JJ_SO]

Update on the "mRAW" and "sRAW". Apparently, Nikon has changed what that entails, on the D850.

 

Now, they are actually 12 bits "RAW".

 

Iliah Borg looks into the files with Raw digger and found that D850 RAW has 8,288 x 5,520 pixels in the RAW file. M has 7,104 x 4,728 pixels, S has 6,216 x 4,136 pixels.


Nikon RAW files get converted into 8,256 x 5,504 pixel images. (this always happens, many border pixels go *poof*).

The M ones get converted into 6,192 x 4,128 pixel images, some serious downsampling still going on there during conversion.

The S ones get converted into 4,128 x 2,752 pixel images, even more serious downsampling going on.


I am sure they have a reason for the 2nd downsampling during conversion. However, to me it seems to partly defeat the reason to shoot mRAW and sRAW (file size).

 

Any ideas why they would use 2 downsamplings (meaning, the second downsamples the first)? I would see it more logical (if downsampling is a need for anybody) to downsample the max size one time to the target size.

 

However, to me it appears pretty stupid, these different "RAW"-files, I simply don't see a purpose in buiyng a high MP count and then  downsample it again.  At first, it appears nonsensical. But then, marketing and sense are two different worlds.  ^_^

 

You already found out for what the use the backlit sensors? The camera basically has two layers of circuits, one has a low gain to get base ISO 64, the other becomes active from ISO 400 with a higher gain. Therefore an improvement in high ISO. So far I only saw ISO 4000 max. which was okay but not enough for my needs. I wonder how it behaves at ISO 12.800 and higher.

 

Just found something on Nikon rumors: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/16/nikon...-iso.aspx/

 

Not too shabby 

[Brightcolours]

I do not know why they do it in two stages. Possibly it has to do with errors being "introduced" with remosaicing after the demosacied downsampling, and a 2nd downsampling smooths this out? I have seen no simulations of what happens in these steps (remosaicing after downsampling) online and will have to do it myself in software to get an understanding of it.

The only reason for lower res. RAW will be significantly smaller files... But with these BIG small files, it makes less sense in that case anyway.

The ISO 10000 seems to look ok, but at that small size it is hard to tell. The other two do look.. shabby.